Re: [multipathtcp] Multipath Address Family

[Michael Tüxen <[e-mail]>]

On Nov 25, 2009, at 1:14 AM, Yoshifumi Nishida wrote:

> 
> From: Michael Tüxen <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: [multipathtcp] Multipath Address Family
> Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 22:07:36 +0100
> Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
> 
>> just one note:
>> In SCTP we use sctp_connectx() to connect to multiple addresses.
>> Kacheong pointed a couple of years ago out that a more generic
>> connectx() would make sense to other protocols supporting multihoming
>> as well (but there were no).
> 
> Just curiosity, do you know the reason why generic connectx() doesn't exist? 
> it make sense to me since the call looks independent from sctp.
Because we were not sure what the right semantic would be:
1. For SCTP (or other protocols supporting multihoming), we wanted something
   like "establish a transport connection with the peer having *all* given addresses.
2. For TCP (or other protocols not supporting multihoming), we though something
   like "establish a transport connection with a peer having *one* of the given addresses.
This is very different. We also assume that if the user provides multiple address,
all the addresses belong the the *same* host. This makes it impossible to use
DNS for getting them...

So we choose to use sctp_connectx() if if lateron a generic connectx() is defined,
we can easily provide an SCTP semantic, if possible.

Best regards
Michael
> Thanks,
> --
> Yoshifumi Nishida
> [e-mail]
> 
> 
> 
>